Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi

BLP violations

I believe that the inclusion of the table draws an inference of causation between the events. Of course, no causation has been proven, though certain media outlets have speculated that there is causation. It is a violation of BLP to imply or indicate causation between Ravi's actions and Clementi's suicide.

Apart from this, the table adds nothing that cannot be easily described in the text. Furthermore, the lack of certain information in the table brings up strong POV issues. Why is Clementi's rejection of lifestyle at the hands of his mother not included? As stated above, why would Wikipedia infer something as fact that is not accepted as fact?

Finally, it looks and reads as unencylcopedic. Per WP policy, the information should be integrated into the text of the article, without violating BLP and NPOV of course.LedRush (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To keep my reply in one place, I'll reply to all of this below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Rejection of lifestyle by Clementi's mother

Why is this sourced information, which is clearly related to the issue of the self-esteem of an individual who committed suicide and is widely reported in the press, contested for inclusion in the "Events" section? Why would mention of the webcam be mentioned but not the Clementi's self-professed views of his mother on this issue? This seems highly biased to me.LedRush (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

On another related note, the removal of Clementi's stated view of the Webcam incident seems to be pushing a POV. The entire section of "background and incident" infer that the information stated therein lead to the incident. This is a BLP violation. As an impartial encyclopedia, we should not make judgments and merely reflect what RSs say about the issue while being mindful of BLP concerns. If we are to infer that Clementi killed himself because of the Webcam incident (as prosecutors assert), why would other events be excluded (like Clementi's own views)? Is this article being written by prosecutors?LedRush (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A slight clarification, if the text relates to Clementi then WP:BDP applies rather than the rest of BLP (in the context that his death can no longer be considered recent) and issues of appropriate weight and NPOV may be more important to consider. Obviously, when it comes to current legal cases, information about the living will fall under BLP. Fæ (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a good reminder. My concerns have been as they relate to Ravi, so BLP is the correct policy for my edits. Of course, we need to be mindful of BDP and other WP policies (like NPOV) as well.LedRush (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You've raised a number of issues, so here is my detailed reply.

First, let's look specifically at the edits in question. You've made two edits updating the information, which are very helpful, and I did not revert them: [1], [2]. I made three edits, which partially reverted some of your other edits.

You removed a category and two templates as inaccurate: [3]. I restored the "bullying" template, while accepting your other two removals: [4]. At the time I made my edit, all I had to go by was your mention in your edit summary of WP:LABEL. It seemed to me that it was factually clear that the incident on this page was a bullying case. I now see from your comments here that you are concerned that there might not have been a causal relationship between what happened in the dorm and the suicide.

You removed the table (which, as another editor noted on your talk page, had been discussed in some detail at the time it was created): [5]. Your stated reasons (in the edit summary) were: "it looks unencyclopedic, is a violation of BLP and NPOV, and generally uninformative". As for how it looks, this is a subjective matter, and I'm receptive to your point about moving it into the text instead, although all you had done was delete it. As for BLP and NPOV, that was baffling to me. It seemed simply to be a timeline of events, based on reliable sources. I reverted you with a polite request that you explain in talk, per WP:BRD: [6]. I now understand from your comments that you are concerned that the timeline implies a cause-and-effect relationship between the events listed and the suicide.

You added information that there have been reports of difficulties within Clementi's family, and of Clementi making a comment about the video not bothering him that much: [7]. In my revert, [8], I expressed concerns that you were making a sort of argument about what really caused the suicide, not supported by the preponderance of sources. No, I'm not a prosecutor. I'm an editor looking for NPOV. But we can take another look at this.

When you reverted all my edits in a single edit, [9], back to what you had written, you indicated in your edit summary that I was violating BLP and not explaining my edits, which isn't really accurate.

So, it seems to me that you are raising the issue that it is possible that the suicide was motivated by Clementi's relationship with his mother, and not by what happened in the dormitory, which might have been something of little importance. You base the latter on a report of a comment Clementi made on line shortly before his death. My thinking is that one has to be very careful about assigning too much significance to what a suicidal person says when they are upset; the report of the on line comment sounds like someone trying to keep a stiff upper lip. Given the preponderance of sources stating that criminal charges have been filed in the case, you need better sourcing to justify a claim that Clementi was actually not bothered by what happened. As for the relationship with the mother, I'm open to including that, although I think the wording needs to be discussed so as not to run up against WP:SYNTH.

Continuing from that, you apparently feel that it is incorrect to characterize the incident as a bullying case, on the grounds that it was really the relationship with the mother that caused the suicide. I'm not sold on that at all. You also feel that the table implies causality. I don't see it that way. I see it simply as a timeline, nothing more. Each entry in the table is a well sourced fact. There is no BLP violation in that. If the effect of the entries, taken as a whole, were to imply fault for the suicide, then there would be a question about that. But I don't think that the implication is there, beyond what the reliable sources say. Instead, I'm concerned that you are advocating a WP:UNDUE emphasis on a single report about the mother.

I'm leaving the page as you left it, and waiting for other editors to express what they think. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

One more point occurred to me, that I thought I should raise. Looking at the comments above about WP:BDP, a case can be made that writing this page in a way that might be construed as "blaming" Clementi's mother for the suicide might actually be a BLP violation with respect to the mother, as described at BDP. Again, I look forward to hearing what more editors think about the various issues here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The page as it was before recent changes was stable, reviewed by many experienced contributors and unchallenged for a significant period despite this being a notable controversy. I believe whilst the changes proposed by LedRush in their recent edits are under discussion, the most respectful approach would be to agree to restore the previous version and discuss the proposal, possibly by an RFC process if necessary. It may well be that due to recent developments reported about the legal case there will be a revived interest, possibly the source of LedRush's interest, recent developments ought to be integrated but with a constant eye on the long view rather than tempting claims of recentism. Fæ (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is more respectful to follow WP procedures regarding BLP concerns.LedRush (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, thank you for your detailed responses. Here are my replies:

1. Neither the content of the table nor the possibility of BLP issues seems to have been discussed at all, nonetheless at length. I saw a very brief discussion on the formatting. Could you please show me this old discussion (for educational purposes, as we all know, consensus can change, and this still wouldn't excuse BLP or NPOV violations).

2. The structure of the article is now such that we attribute Clementi's suicide to Ravi's actions. No court of law has created this causal relationship and Ravi has not been accused of this crime. It is fair game to talk about the charges against him (purely factual matters), but it is not fair to present only a certain set of facts which leads people to believe that Ravi's actions were the direct cause of Clementi's suicide. Further to this point, if we are being fair, we should give all evidence reported in the media about Clementi's relationships before the suicide: that means we should present how he expressed his opinions of Ravi's actions to friends and what his relationship to his mother was. I don't see how we can be NPOV while presenting only one view with a very transparent agenda.

3. I do not want to say that the suicide was a result of his relationship of his mother. As above, I want to present more than one side of the case as many Reliable Sources have reported.

4. I do not think that Clementi's relationship with his mother necessarily affects whether this is a bullying case. WP:LABEL states that we should stay away from value laden terms. While to me this is obviously not a case of bullying, the media has reported it as such. The article should (and does) reflect this. However, when we label it a bullying case ourselves, we are making the determination ourselves, violating BLP, NPOV and LABEL.

I am not adverse to playing with my wording...I have no ownership over this article (no one does). However, a mass revert of edits intended to address BLP and NPOV concerns seems counterproductive. Now that we've staked out our general ideas, I think it would be helpful if you suggested specific changes to the text (or other ways to address the BLP and NPOV concerns).

Also, as an aside, there are tons of articles about Clementi's relationship with his mother, not one. This is not a case of UNDUE. Furthermore, I am not advocating blaming his mother in any way, just as no one here should be advocating blaming Ravi in any way. We should be explaining the events around the suicide in a NPOV way that doesn't violate BLP and which reflects RSs.LedRush (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that we are discussing these issues, and I'm hopeful that we can figure out a way to consensus.

I tend to agree with Fae about which version of the page we should keep until we reach a longer term decision. As for BLP concerns, I have pointed out that there are BLP concerns with respect to Clementi's mother in the version that is on the page now, so we're caught in a situation where there are BLP concerns either way. This being the case, I'm continuing my stance of not reverting anything myself, even if it's the proverbial Wrong Version TM. I'd like to just wait a few more days and see if additional editors show up and offer views. If that doesn't happen, perhaps I'll put a neutrally worded request at WP:BLPN.

On the minor point of the prior discussions of the timeline table, my recollection is that no one previously raised any BLP concerns about it, even though it was being looked at closely. There would have been no reason to discuss BLP concerns if nobody felt that any such concerns existed.

I appreciate learning that there are now multiple sources about possible alternative explanations for the suicide. To the extent that we still adhere to WP:UNDUE, I'll be fine with incorporating them into the page. I'll need a bit of time to examine the sources for myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So, it seems like the only outstanding points are regarding the table (which I believe is unencyclopedic, violates NPOV, violates BLP and contains only information already in the article; and you believe is helpful) and the info on Clementi's mother. Seeing as this information (on Clementi's feelings of being rejected ) is extremely widely presented in RSs (New York Times, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, NBC, CBS, etc.) it is clearly not a case of UNDUE. The only question is about BLP concerns. I personally don't see any at all. How can we present the information on Ravi alone, implying causation, and omit all other factors which are reported in tons of super-RSs? If we deleted everything on Ravi and included only the information on Clementi's feelings about his parents, I might agree that is a BLP violation (might because we focus on Clementi's feelings and not on his mother's actions, whereas we focus on Ravi's actions, despite the fact that no related charges tie him to causation). That is obviously not the case now.

However, if, after reading the sources below and the one cited in the article, you still actually believe the inclusion of the sentence regarding Clementi's feelings toward his mother is a BLP violation, you should delete it until we reach consensus here. Legitimately disputed BLP issues should not remain in the article while under discussion.LedRush (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So you say. What I say is, first, I would welcome hearing from more editors, and, second, I want to examine the available sources (including but not limited to those you have presented), and see for myself what I think the reliably sourced information is. I don't think it's productive for me to speculate on what the page might end up saying until I know more about the recent sources. In the mean time, anyone is welcome to remove any BLP issues as they see fit. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you think the "you (LedRush) say" is, or why you've chosen such a confrontational attitude in response to a post of mine which is pretty explicit in calling for collaboration and akcnowledging my willingness to compromise.LedRush (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Skeptical to a reasonable extent, but not confrontational. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm entering the discussion a bit late in the game, after three weeks of barely glancing at my watchlist, so please excuse me if I'm not quite up to speed. I have read the comments above and glanced at the history but not studied the matter in detail. First, let me say right up front that the heading for this section raises a red flag for me. In my experience, use of the word "lifestyle" in this context often indicates either considerable ignorance about the topic or an ideological bent that includes antipathy toward the LGBT population. "Lifestyle" is not synonymous with "sexual orientation", and I trust that it was merely a careless mistake in this instance.

Since first encountering the article a few months ago, I've thought the table was a bit strange. I toyed with the idea of incorporating its content into the body of the article but decided that it might be useful in that it provides a quick overview of relevant events. I'm not persuaded that the timeline necessarily implies a cause-and-effect relationship between those events; each of them is a major event in the story, and they did happen in that order.

As far as the mother is concerned, other than exercising due diligence in checking sources and wording it neutrally, I see no reason to exclude her from the article. I'm not sure what function the word "basically" is serving in that sentence in the current version. It sounds weaselly. Better to go with exactly what our most reliable source says; it's going to be a very short quote, anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"the word "basically" is used because some of the RSs use it when they describe Clementi's statements. It is unnecessary in the article but used to ensure that people didn't think I was attributing ideas to Clementi that he didn't expressly state.LedRush (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the points that Rivertorch has raised, in particular with respect to the word choices we should make on the page. That's true about "lifestyle". I also am uncomfortable with the stereotype of an easy going father and an overbearing mother. Please don't get me wrong: I don't think any of that was intentional, but I'm just saying that we need to be aware of how things sound. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I am agnostic on the term "lifestyle"; it is the term of choice for the PC crowd, which is probably why the RSs use it. I am unaware of the stereotype of the easygoing father and overbearing mother (isn't it stereotypically the other way?), but regardless, we don't even hint at that now, and we must report on what the RSs say, even if it were a stereotype that just happened to be true in this case.LedRush (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Some articles which can be used to update this article (and help the article with the NPOV and BLP issues)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/nyregion/with-tyler-clementi-suicide-more-complex-picture-emerges.html

"The early news media coverage linked the suicide of Mr. Clementi to the spying, but the authorities never alleged a connection, and the information made public does not make clear why he took his own life."

"The Web chats that appear to be Mr. Clementi’s do not portray a man fearful of having his sexual orientation disclosed. He played down Mr. Ravi’s telling people and wrote that other students would know why he was bringing a man to his room. He wrote that he had told his family that he was gay and that unlike his brothers and his father, his mother reacted negatively."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576502811047499564.html

This article focuses on Ravi's responses to accusations, and an update on the trial.LedRush (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the sources

I have now reviewed the sources cited above, as well as having looked for additional recent sources. I can only conclude that the correct thing to do, per WP:BDP, is to revert the recent edits, and I have done so.

Here are the results returned by a Google News search for "Tyler Clementi" without any other, potentially biasing, search terms, for approximately the last two months: [10]. A number of facts stand out:

• The term "bullying" is applied to the events by numerous recent sources. For Wikipedia to find reason to reject this "label" per WP:LABEL would violate WP:OR. Are there any reliable sources that say the incident should not be called bullying? If they exist, I'd be happy to cite them, but I do not see them.

• There is nothing—nothing!—in the sources that would contradict the timeline table. Indeed, many of them continue to repeat it (one example). They even reinforce the idea that there actually was cause and effect. The table does not state that there was cause and effect, but it would be an accurate representation of the sources if it did.

• Both the New York Times [11] and Wall Street Journal [12] articles linked above make several things very clear.

1. First, they both substantively repeat the account of events reflected in the timeline table, far from refuting it. Just read what they say.
2. Secondly, they both attribute the arguments about alternative explanations for the suicide to a motion filed by Ravi's defense attorney. They do not present it as information revealed through their own investigations. They present it only as claims made in defense motions. It looks to me like all of the other stories, in other news outlets, are mirroring the Times story. Thus, any claim by Wikipedia that the video etc. were not the proximal cause of the suicide would have to be attributed to the defense attorney. I would not object to mentioning briefly on the page that this is the defense's position, so long as it is clearly identified as such.
3. Thirdly, they report that the dropping of charges against Wei was done in exchange for her testimony against Ravi, a fact we need to make clear.
4. Fourth, the mention of Clementi's mother is made only very briefly in the Times piece (second paragraph), where it is presented as something that was on his mind, but not as a possible cause of the suicide. It is cherry-picking and original research to pull that mention out of the article, and make it sound like a possible alternative explanation.

So, I have reverted the changes. I think we need to add to the page a brief mention of why the charges were dropped against Wei. I would support adding some information to the page, reflecting the position of Ravi's defense, but clearly identifying it as such. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your mass revert goes against direct BLP guidelines, and fails to address many of the points I have brought up. Addressing your points:

1. I don't have to go and find sources that don't say it's bullying (which is just silly, really...how many news reports say that an event does not fall into some random category of events? How long of a list would be required for each story?)

2. I never said the timeline was wrong. Please read my remarks above.

3. You seem to be assuming a cause and effect between Ravi's actions and the suicide. The prosecutors haven't done this (check the sources above) and WP cannot do this without attribution.

4. I haven't inferred a cause and effect relationship regarding Clementi's feelings on his mother. However, this is reported in literally hundreds of news reports as a significant event before the suicide. Not including it is a BLP issue, as well as a NPOV one.

5. The article says in the lede why Wei isn't being charged. How much clearer can it be?

Please discuss the actual issues here before reverting, per WP policy on BLP issues.LedRush (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You said somewhere above that you wanted me to remove anything that I thought violated BLP, and you yourself seem to be doing most of the reverting here. And my apologies about the reasons Wei isn't being charged. I just missed that, which was a complete error on my part, sorry.

About bullying, I asked if you had such a source. You don't have to provide one if you don't have one. But I have provided numerous sources that do indicate that the events are considered to have been bullying. Absent a source to the contrary, my arguments, above, that it violates WP:OR for us to decide that these sources should be ignored, remains unrefuted.

It does not matter whether you, personally, think that the timeline is right or wrong, or that there are or are not cause-and-effect relationships. You argued above that the timeline implies a cause-and-effect relationship amongst the individual entries in the table. I have shown that the timeline properly reflects the available sourcing. You seem to be insisting on removing it on the basis that Wikipedia should treat the events involving Ravi as unrelated to the suicide, which is a position that actually goes beyond what any sources would support.

About the "literally hundreds" of sources about Clementi's mother, I have shown that they are all mirroring the Times report that this information was obtained only from filings by Ravi's defense attorney. You have no sources to the contrary. I support presenting the defense's position, but it must be presented as such, not as "facts" in Wikipedia's voice.

I am concerned that you are misrepresenting sources, and I feel that we may need to ask for more editors to look at these issues, instead of just going back and forth between you and me. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented sources, but it seems that you may be. The New York times says that the information came from Clementi's web chats. This is not the defence making an argument, this is the defence citing web chats in their papers. There is a huge difference. I hope that you will engage in edits in the article in good faith, with an eye towards NPOV and BLP concerns.LedRush (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You haven't really responded to what I said. Rather than us continuing to go around in circles, I have posted a request for more editors to offer advice at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Suicide of Tyler Clementi. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting...I seem to remember writing the same about you in the recent past. Hmm...LedRush (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

One editor has commented at BLPN (see the link above) that the issues here appear not to be BLP-related at all (instead WP:BURDEN and WP:UNDUE), which I find quite significant, to the extent that it suggests a view that arguments that have been based upon BLP may be faulty. I'm pleased to see some more editors are looking at the page now, and I look forward to seeing if any more advice will be forthcoming from uninvolved editors in the next few days. I may perhaps also follow that editor's advice and post at NPOVN, if need be. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, are you not ok with the info on Clementi's relationship with his parents as it now appears?

Are the other issues the use of the "bullying" tag and the table? I am trying to nail down precisely what your concerns are and understand specific proposals to address them.LedRush (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I have concerns about how to present the information from the defense filing, about Clementi's parents, and Clementi's statement about not being bothered by who saw the video. I do not currently know where we stand on that.
2. About the timeline table, I am open to discussion about the esthetics of it and about whether the information would or would not be better presented in the main text. However, I think the argument that it should be deleted on BLP grounds (with respect to Ravi) is without merit.
3. About the template and category pertaining to bullying, I think that it is very clear that the available sources indicate that it was incorrect to delete them.--Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

And now [13]. This has the effect of repeating the information twice, and seems to be another instance of constantly reverting. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be the one constantly reverting. You seem unwilling to discuss specific proposals on the talk page, and instead look to just mass revert once a day or so. Also, your most recent edit made the argument that Clementi's death was a direct result of Ravi's actions (even though the NY Times goes out of it's way to say this is explicitly not the position of the Prosecutor) and then further distorts reality by saying that Ravi's defence even admitted that there was a causal relationship, but merely a less direct one. That edit violated OR, BLP, NPOV and just basic editing protocols. If you want to revert further, I once again suggest that you make specific suggestions and discuss them here first.LedRush (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I consider those comments to be 100% inaccurate, but I'll leave it to other editors to judge for themselves who is and who isn't editing responsibly. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

100% inaccurate? You don't concede that the NYTimes piece says "The early news media coverage linked the suicide of Mr. Clementi to the spying, but the authorities never alleged a connection, and the information made public does not make clear why he took his own life." You don't see how saying "arguing that the causes of Clementi's suicide were less clearly related to Ravi's actions than the prosecution had claimed" are doubly bad as the prosecution hasn't made this claim, and obviously the defense isn't conceding a causal connection at all?LedRush (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any point in arguing about 100% versus 90% or whatever. I provided that wording in good faith, believing that it was an accommodation to your concerns. It turns out that I misinterpreted what you felt about it, and I accept your deletion of those words. By the way, I also agree with your move of the bullying-related material to the reactions section. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)1. Judging from out recent edits, we have a fundamental difference of opinion on how to integrate the new information. I believe your method is a clear BLP and POV violation. It must be integrated, and not passed off just as some defense claim.

2. About the timeline: the aesthetics are bad, and the information is already integrated into the text ( I believe, what information is there that isn't in the text? If it's not, it should be). Therefore, other than aesthetics and going against WP guidelines on generally integrating information, it isn't adding anything good to the article. And because the timeline is selective, it is currently POV and a BLP violation (this last point is correctable, of course, but the bigger point is why do you want it in when it doesn't add anything).

3. I don't feel it is clear at all. However, enough sources have made the claim that I will concede this point, even though I think it's better from a policy perspective not to include the tags.LedRush (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we agree, then, on point 3? If so, that's a significant step forward! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree on point 3, but I agree that I will not stop you from readding the labels, even though I don't agree with your doing so. That's kinda like agreement, right? And it is progress :)LedRush (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you! I appreciate that very much! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed "Category:Suicides due to cyber-bullying" from the list (was that there before) because it is conclusory, not articulated by the prosecution or authorities, and recent RSs seem to question it. If you disagree with my reasoning, let's add it to the list of outstanding issues you seem to be constructing below.LedRush (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Remaining issues

1. About the timeline table, a case can be made that it is helpful to give, in a compact way, a clear sense of, literally, the timeline – that is, the timing of the events from day to day. On the other hand, I can accept that the table looks a little odd, and the information contained in it (other than all of the dates, at least in a quickly accessible format) is repeated in the text. I do not accept that there are BLP issues for having deleted it. At this point, I don't feel strongly about it: I would accept other editors putting it back, but I'm not going to press any longer for its return.
2. About the "new details" raised in the August defense filing, I think that we have made progress towards a mutually agreeable format, but I remain uncomfortable with some issues. I note that the discussion at WP:BLPN is giving some push-back against the theory that we need to include that material as a BLP matter with respect to Ravi. I could also point to WP:BLPPRIMARY's discussion about how to report information that is sourced to court documents. Because the information in the court filings has been discussed by numerous secondary sources, I think we are on solid ground including it in some form, but we need to be clear about how those secondary sources have presented it, and how they haven't. How, then, to balance the need, per WP:NPOV to adequately present Ravi's "side" of the story, with the issue of WP:UNDUE? I have agreed all along that we do indeed need to present the POV of the defense. However, we still have some issues about presenting claims as though they are objective facts, equal in weight to the other sourced facts. All of the sourcing for (1) the issue of whether Clementi was upset by his mother's response to finding out that he was gay, and (2) Clementi's comment online about not being too bothered about what Ravi had done, comes from sources that attribute the information to the defense's filed documents. Consequently, I'm not comfortable with reporting these two pieces of information in the Background/incident section, along with the other information that sources attribute, instead, to journalistic facts. I agree that we should present the information, but I think it better to present it in the section about the court case, as information that came to light as a result of the defense filings. Indeed, that is simply factually accurate, as to when and how the "new details" emerged. I was reverted on that. I'd like to re-examine that issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
3. I'd like to add back the category that was deleted while I was commenting above. It seems to me that most sources support such a categorization (the only reliable sources now questioning it base that questioning on the defense filing, not their own journalistic findings of fact), even if it is not a matter of legal finding. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding #3, that is clearly not the case. Can you please show me a source in which the authorities or prosecution say that the suicide was a direct result of the spying incident? If you do (I don't think you can), does that source also say that the prosecution has deemed that the spying was in fact a case of bullying (cyber or otherwise)?

I don't think we're far apart on #2, though I think you are mistaken about the nature of the facts of this case and how the RSs report it. I will give a more detailed response to this later.LedRush (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to just chip in on the bullying category issue. Even if the "authorities" or any particular temporary group of lawyers do not currently or officially consider this a bullying case, that does not stop the wealth of existing reliable sources that refer to the suicide as a bullying case. It is perfectly reasonable to categorize the article on this basis. Please keep in mind that the article is about Clementi's suicide (a BDP not a BLP) which includes contemporary context and historic and social impact, not just the details of the current legal case against Ravi. Fæ (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course that is true. That is why, even though many RSs don't seem to address this as a bullying case, I conceded that we may add those tags to this article because the ones that do. Now we are talking about a direct causal relationship between the alleged bullying and the suicide. We have RSs like the NYTimes stating that it is unclear why Clementi killed himself. I remember only sensational reports making the direct causal claim, though there could be others. Would you please find a list of RSs which make this direct causal relationship explicit so we can see whether those RSs are pervasive enough to overcome the obvious BLP issues of making claims that no one officially makes?LedRush (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The high quality sources are unlikely to make any clear causal statement but provide a clear enough context, you may want to read through the sources included that reported the original suicide in the first few weeks rather than putting the burden on me to re-list them here. As a single high quality example, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/30/tyler-clementi-gay-student-suicide states "Clementi's suicide is the latest example of the damage that can be inflicted when the age-old habit of pranks between teenagers meets the huge social power of technology." which makes it a case study for bullying rather than family rejection issue. Again this is a BDP not a BLP, concern over fairly representing the legal case is not a reason to fail to include details of the historic and social impact of Clementi's suicide (including summarising the contemporary sensationalist or reactive reporting) even if the Ravi defence case is currently questioning that perception with previously unknown correspondence. I would recommend that both aspects are captured by a good encyclopaedic article in line with Undue weight. --Fæ (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am highly concerned by (1) you not recognizing that facts regarding living people, even in articles about dead people or events, are still BLP issues; and (2) your lack of willingness to provide evidence of your position regarding the causal relationship as I asked above. Regardless, I will look at some sources and see if any of them come close to supporting the position.LedRush (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the source you use says that Clementi killed himself after video of him having sex with another man was streamed on the internet. This is exacly the sensational, yellow, and factually inaccurate reporting that cannot be used.LedRush (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was perfectly willing to provide a source and I did, you even referred to it in your response, claiming that I am "unwilling" is incorrect. I find it surprising that you think The Guardian is not a reliable source to show historic impact. Excluding such sources when they are being used with appropriate weight is not supported by policy. I have repeatedly pointed out to you that this is a BDP, and I have not ignored the fact that BLP applies to facts about living persons as the BDP section of BLP explains quite clearly. To spell it out, BDP is a part of BLP. BLP is not a big stick to beat aside every other good practice and policy for writing Wikipedia articles and WP:DUE applies here. To be honest, I am uncomfortable with the argumentative response you have given, so I'll take this article off my watch-list rather than annoying you with repeating the same issues of policy and good practice. Thanks Fæ (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if I seemed combative, but it appears that the editors on this page are (deliberately or otherwise) (1) misstating my position, (2) misstating the sources, (3) ignoring my points , (4) being extremely defensive, (5) bringing a specific POV into the conversation, and into the article. As just one example, the Guardian can be a reliable source, but when it grossly misstates the facts of the case in a sensational headline, can't we agree that that article is best not used? Instead, you've brushed past my point on that matter and misrepresented my opinion as something I clearly didn't say. If you understand BLP, I'm not sure why you'd point out that the article is a BDP when you seem to acknowledge the BLP applies to Ravi and any other living subjects. Finally, you haven't found any RS to support your position. You've asked me to go somewhere and look through a list on the off chance that one might contain the info that you hope it does. That's just not right...LedRush (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll make a few comments, not necessarily to convince LedRush, but directed more to any other editors who may be looking in. I appreciate what Fae said here, and I hope that they have not really been driven away. I also note that an uninvolved editor is making it very clear at WP:BLPN that the BLP-based arguments are unconvincing. As for the sourcing, I pointed quite a while ago in this talk to a survey of the recent sourcing on the topic, [14], and it's worth noting the abundance of reliable secondary sources that treat the incident as a bullying case. This talk page has gone back and forth about whether we are, or are not, talking about cause-and-effect, but if sources are, repeatedly, saying that the subject matter pertains to bullying, then that's what the sources say. And there is no sourcing requirement that a court have ruled that it is bullying, only that reliable secondary sources say so. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why my arguments are repeatedly either ignored or mistated, here, but perhaps I need to be even more clear: I have conceded the point on the bullying and cyber-bullying labels. Please see above. I have removed the label about "suicided due to cyber-bullying" as we have an extremely high quality RS which says it isn't the case, and, per BLP rules on labels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blp#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates), we need to have that info clearly and well cited in the article in order to have the label (and to make it into the article, we need to meet all the concerns about NPOV, UNDUE and BLP as well).LedRush (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and it's interesting to note that the very first hit of the google case is the NY Times article that says that the suicide has not been linked to the spycam incident.LedRush (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If it were just me disagreeing with you, that would be one thing. But with other editors, here and at BLPN, expressing frustration with you, you may want to consider whether editors really are not ignoring what you say, but instead finding it unpersuasive. Or not, up to you.

What the Times actually says about the possible connection between the dorm incidents and the suicide is: "the authorities never alleged a connection, and the information made public does not make clear why he took his own life." That's not the same thing as saying "the suicide has not been linked to the spycam incident." The overwhelming majority of reliable sources do make the link, while leaving open the possibility of gray areas. WP:BLPCAT does not require sourcing to meet courtroom standards, which is the standard "the authorities" in question have to use. BLPCAT also refers only to categories about categorization of people, not of events. Thus, I think WP:UNDUE actually justifies the category. Obviously, you disagree.

Since the two of us are stuck on the category, let's see if there are other places where we can make progress. Please note that I very largely agreed with the newest edits you made. I observe that you added material from the defense attorney's court filings, about Clementi's earlier comments about life being tough and about the bridge. Since the other outstanding issue is about my concern about the other material that also comes from that court filing, about Clementi's mother and about saying what Ravi did was no big deal, would you now perhaps consider putting that information, as well, in the same paragraph with the court filing from which it comes, instead of in the section about the incident? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, your changes to my additions were much needed and make the article better. Thank you.

Thank you also for at addressing my argument. I do not ask people to agree with me (well, I do, but you know what I mean), but I do want them to at least acknowledge and address my positions. You now have. Thank you again.

I do not feel comfortable removing the information as it seems to me most important as background information. I am playing with the idea of making a new section, "The WebCam Incident" and mention only the facts around that there. Before such a section there could be a separate background information section with some information about Clementi before college. Next we could have a "Suicide" section which explains the factual details of the suicide. Finally, we can have the trials section. However, that doesn't get us over the disagreement we have - I would still want information on Clementi's coming out to his family in the background section, and I would still want Clementi's web chats saying he wasn't bothered by the incident in the Incident section.

Regarding the category tag, it says that the suicide was "due to" cyber-bullying. However, I still have not seen any RS which makes this claim. The NYTimes article I mention does not explicitly refute the claim, and I expect that no article will (articles don't often list what things didn't cause something to happen), but it is very strong and compelling evidence that the tag doesn't fit this article. I will not hold the article up to the standards of being an allegation by a prosecutor (very different, and much easier than courtroom standards, BTW), but the lack of evidence is evidence in itself (even if it isn't dispositive evidence). Currently, the tag is OR, unsourced, and doesn't meet any of the guidelines for tagging a living person.

Finally, I am worried about many of the sources in this article. They seem to be riddled with inaccuracies and screaming of sensationalism (not to mention, opinion pieces and non-RS have been used to make claims not attributed to them). Some common mistakes are: (1) Ravi outed Clementi (Clementi was out at the very least to his family and friends according to RSs); (2) Ravi recorded Clementi (there is no evidence of a recording) ; (3) tons of people saw this (there is no evidence of this); (4) the webcam caught Clementi having sex (it appears that Clementi and another man were kissing with their shirts off). At some point, I will have to endeavor to conduct an audit.

Sorry for the rambling - I try and ask other for concrete suggestions, and I've not really provided much here.LedRush (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, too. I appreciate very much being able to discuss these issues in a non-confrontational manner. I tend to agree with you that a good approach might be to divide the page into more sections, with more chronological treatment of the events that happened. Doing so would have the added benefit of making the former timeline table less missed. We may end up with a small number of things where we still disagree after that, but perhaps we will then be able to distill those down to a short enough list that we could seek additional opinions via an RfC, later on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Category name

I'd like to float an idea that occurred to me about that category, and see whether or not it might help. I could look into changing the category name from "Suicides due to cyber-bullying" to "Suicides of persons who were cyber-bullied". That would, I think, take away the statement of cause-and-effect, and I think it would be uncontroversial at the other pages in the category. Would that change, if agreed to, make the category acceptable here? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was without power from the hurricane until two days ago , and busy at work otherwise. Your proposed compromise is better than the obviously unacceptable and BLP violation of "Suicides due to cyber-bullying" seeeing as we still haven't gotten any sources to back up that claim. However, the compromise still has two big issues: (1) it implies causation where none has been asserted in RSs; (2) it is such a small category (and one that merely combines two others) that it seems pointless - you have a category for suicides, and one for cyber bullying - why would you need a category which does nothing except tell people that you the article is tagged in two other ways? It brings nothing to the table.LedRush (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry that you got hit by that hurricane, and that's certainly understandable! I've self-reverted, so the category isn't on the page for now.

Well, I think the proposed name (and I'm open to other suggestions) clearly doesn't state that there was causation, which is the objection to the existing name. You raise the concern, instead, that it is implied, and it seems to me that that actually matches pretty well with what the vast majority of sources do: they acknowledge that it is probably impossible to prove a causal role of the camera incident, but they treat the suicide as something that followed the camera incident. Even the sources that focus on the new evidence do not treat it as relegating the camera incident to a discarded incorrect theory, but treat is as something where the camera incident was a central event and where there is now reason to see other, additional causes, with the percent contribution (as it were) of the additional causes unknown, but important to the argument of Ravi's court defense. Many RSs actually do assert causation, to the extent of implying it while acknowledging that it would be difficult to prove.

Your other issue is the smallness of the category. At present, there are three other pages (one a draft) in the category. If the category shouldn't exist at all, that's something we cannot decide here. If it continues to exist, it actually makes sense to use here the most specific categories available. The page currently is not in a cyber-bullying related category at all (although there's a navbox), and it really ought to be. Nor is it in a general suicides category, but instead is in categories of suicide by state and by method of death. The parent category of the one we discuss is "Victims of cyber-bullying" (ie, with suicides a sub-category thereof). That has only one page plus the suicides subcategory, and the one page is of a living person. So I don't see much benefit of using less specific categories instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still don't like either the category name or its usage, but I've been getting my way a lot on this article. I concede the point.LedRush (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I want to say that I very much appreciate that we are now finding ways to work together cooperatively on this, and I think we, together, are on our way to making the page better. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for another gracious reply. I have no doubt that you are passionate about the subject and want to make the article as good as you can.LedRush (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments at the rename discussion would be welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Mulvihill, Geoff. "In Tyler Clementi's NJ dorm, tensions were high." Associated Press. (3 days ago) from September 12, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks like a reliable and well-balanced recent source, and I look forward to incorporating it into the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• [15], [16]. About the judge's rulings on the defense filings that have been central to the lengthy talk above. Looks like the judge agrees that the other man in the dorm room will need to be identified, but otherwise rejected the defense's motions. This may have a bearing on the weight (per WP:UNDUE) that we should give the information, purportedly casting doubt on the role of the webcam incident in causing the suicide, in this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is exceedingly rare for a pre-trial motion to have grand jury indictments dismissed. This doesn't have any effect on any of the other information surrounding the incident. Hundreds of reliable sources point to that other information, and so should we.LedRush (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The "hundreds" of sources are, as I've already explained, mirroring a report in the New York Times that the information in question comes from the defense filing, and not from any separate reporting. No one is arguing for removing the information entirely. Instead, I'm saying that we should give the information due, rather than undue weight, per WP:UNDUE, and the judge's decision is an independent (of Wikipedia) determination of the significance of the defense filings from which the information comes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

[17]. Not necessarily that we should use this one, but I think it's an interesting indicator of what secondary sources think. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, even the sources you point to above reference some of the newly introduced info. This is not the case of mirroring anything. The information is part of official court documents, and RSs report on it.LedRush (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting source saying explicitly that we don't know why he killed himself [18] This one talks about the information as being alleged by the defense, but also seems to indicate the other messages contained in the court documents are "indisputable facts" [19]. It's really not hard to find mention of these facts. And that they aren't brought up in each twist and turn of the story also seems unimportant, to me.LedRush (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

See also, and template

In the latest revert of my edits, this: [20]. I'll copy the edit summary here, for easier reference: "Delete: 1. abuse link...has abuse been alleged...the article doesn't mention it; 2. link to two other suicides which seem unrelated and aren't mentioned in article".

About the abuse template, first see Template talk:Abuse cases#Bullying/cyberbullying. As can be seen there, I too was skeptical about including this and related pages on the template. However, at least one editor working on the template makes an insistent case that this page should be listed within the template, and at this time, it is listed there. I'm receptive to re-arguing the point, although I don't think it will be particularly productive to do so. However, so long as this page is linked to by the template, it really does not make sense to remove the template from this page. Just removing the template from this page does nothing to change the fact that the template is on multiple other pages, where it lists this page as an example of abuse.

About the two see also links, WP:ALSO actually makes it clear that the section is used for internal links that are not mentioned within the article, and so the absence of mention within the page is not really a good reason to delete them. (Although a case can be made for deleting them from see also in favor of keeping the links to them in the template!) Suicide of Megan Meier is about the suicide of a student who was cyber-bullied and who committed suicide. Suicide of Ryan Halligan is about the suicide of a student who was cyber-bullied and who committed suicide. This page is about the suicide of a student who was cyber-bullied and who committed suicide. There is obviously a relationship of the subject matter. That does not mean that the cases, or the motivations, are identical. They don't have to be. They simply have to be pages that readers interested in this page might also want to look at, and they link back to here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the two other cases are "related", but I'll concede those. The abuse tag, though, runs afoul of BLP, in my mind, and I'd want that one removed until a consensus is built to include it. I'll bring it up on that other page, if you like, but we need to follow the rules of what's best for this article WP:otherstuffexists.LedRush (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can work with that. To be consistent, we need to discuss at the template talk the possibility of removing this and related pages. I see that you have started on doing that, and I will rejoin that discussion too. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Some changes needed

I saw this article which has new information on the case and has something that we should update regarding Clementi's mother (I don't think we delete what we have, just update for another side to the story.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dharun-ravi-suspected-spying-gay-roommate-rutgers-rejects-plea-deal-article-1.989220#ixzz1g4VxGgxK

If no one does this in the short turn, I'll try to find the time to insert it corectly.LedRush (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Although you didn't mention it, would it make sense to add to the page that Ravi has rejected a plea deal? As for the mother, clearly the content on the page where the new source has bearing is the sentence: "While his father supported him, Clementi said that his mother had basically "rejected" him." My take on the new information is that it might, instead, be best to simply delete the sentence I just quoted. On the one hand, the new source does not address that bit of information directly; on the other, it puts it in a very complicated light. Instead of explaining what Clementi said and then explaining what his mother said, which leaves things very ambiguous (since they address slightly different things), it might be better to treat either apparent "side" as being WP:UNDUE until further journalism (perhaps in the course of the trial) leads to an understanding amongst sources as to what the facts really were. It seems to me that the WP:BLP issues with respect to deleting that sentence are minimal with respect to Ravi (or Wei), but they are significant with respect to the mother, and the new source may mean that it is now irresponsible for us to leave the sentence I quoted in there. (Alternatively, we could change that sentence to: "While his father supported him, reports differ as to how his mother reacted to the news.", and cite both sources. That presents both "sides", but I'm not convinced that it really captures what the new source does and does not convey.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I did add the Ravi plea rejection (that was the main update to which I cryptically referred) and I've tried to add the info about his parents. I am still very reluctant to pull out this info because we are already strongly insinuating that Ravi caused Clementi's suicide, despite the lack of commensurate charges against him. Many sources have discussed Clementi's state of mind, and his recent, perhaps traumatic, but by all accounts dramatic, discussion with his parents is a piece of the puzzle. It should come as no surprise to you that my concern is the BLP angle regarding Ravi, though I completely understand and respect your opinion.

What do you think of my attempt? I've tried to be as fair (true to the source) as possible.LedRush (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated by the fact that a third editor removed some of what you added, between the time you made the edits and the time I logged in and saw this. But I guess I'm fine with this, because it does come across to me as balanced, and I am also very happy with how we are working collaboratively on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't actually remove anything (any content, that is). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my references!LedRush (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Woops, I misread the diff. Anyway, I read it all again, and it's all fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed "streaming" from introduction.

There was no support for the assertion that video was streamed. And, I just found a source saying it was not streamed: The Story of a Suicide, The New Yorker, 2/6/2012. So I edited the introduction to remove that assertion. Dogweather (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the cited Guardian article reports the claim that "Ravi then streamed the video live, and that same night broadcast to the 150 followers of his Twitter feed details of his voyeuristic escapade." Is that no longer believed by authorities to be the case? I haven't read the New Yorker piece yet, but whether or not he streamed the video, if the allegation remains that he used the Internet (i.e., Twitter) to out Clementi, that probably should remain in the lede. Rivertorch (talk) 06:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Maybe we need to say, then, that there are conflicting reports. The Guardian doesn't make it clear who their source is. It *sounds* like it's the grand jury indictment, but I'm just guessing. The New Yorker article says that the "streaming" and "outing" claims are both false. Dogweather (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)